AT&T Class Action Defense Cases–AT&T v. Hulteen: Supreme Court Holds Employer Does Not Violate Pregnancy Discrimination Act By Paying Pension Benefits Calculated Under Pre-PDA Accrual Rule Giving Less Retirement Credit For Pregnancy Than Medical Leave

Class Action Failed to Allege Discrimination Against Employer that Calculated Pension Benefits under Pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) Rules, Lawful at the Time, that Gave Less Retirement Credit to Pregnancy Leave than for Medical Leave Supreme Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against AT&T alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the class action complaint asserted that defendant discriminated against employees on the basis of sex and pregnancy by providing pension and other benefits on a seniority system that treated pregnancy differently from other medical conditions.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Prop 64 Class Action Defense Cases–In re Tobacco II: California Supreme Court “Turns Class Action Law Upside Down” And Holds UCL Class Actions May Be Certified Even If Class Members Lack Standing To File Suit In Own Name

Class Actions Alleging Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) may be Certified as a Class Action even if Putative Class Members Lack Standing to Prosecute UCL Claims in Their Own Name, but Class Representative Alleging Misrepresentation as Basis of UCL Class Action Claim must Demonstrate Actual Reliance on the Defendant’s Allegedly Deceptive or Misleading Statements California Supreme Court Holds

A class action lawsuit was filed in California state court against various tobacco industry defendants alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); specifically, the class action complaint asserted that defendants “conduct[ed] a decades-long campaign of deceptive advertising and misleading statements about the addictive nature of nicotine and the relationship between tobacco use and disease.” In re Tobacco II Cases, ___ Cal.4th ___, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 (Cal. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. The class action complaint was amended numerous times; the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the litigation as a class action, filed in connection with the seventh amended class action complaint. _Id._, at 3. At the time the trial court granted class action status to the lawsuit, under California law an individual had standing to file suit alleging UCL violations even if the individual had not suffered any injury; following class certification, Californians passed Proposition 64, which amended the UCL so as to condition standing to file suit to a “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of [such] unfair competition.” _Id._, at 1-2 (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204). Additionally, prior to Prop 64 UCL representative actions did not have to satisfy the requirements for class action treatment under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, but Prop 64 explicitly requires such compliance, _id._, at 13. Based on the standing requirement imposed by Prop 64, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class “on the grounds that each class member was now required to show an injury in fact, consisting of lost money or property, as a result of the alleged unfair competition.” _Id._, at 2. The appellate court affirmed, “agreeing with the trial court that, post Proposition 64, individual issues of exposure to the allegedly deceptive statements and reliance upon them, predominated over class issues.” _Id._, at 9. But the California Supreme Court – in a 4-3 decision – reversed.

The California Supreme Court’s decision is ground-breaking: it represents the first opinion known to this author that allows an individual to be a member of a class even if that person does not have standing to file suit in his or her own name. The Supreme Court addressed two issues: “First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64’s standing requirements, the class representatives or all unnamed class members, in order for the class action to proceed?” In re Tobacco II, at 2. This is the question on which we focus here. “Second, what is the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular what is the meaning of the phrase ‘as a result of’ in section 17204?” Id. While we do not discuss this aspect of the Court’s opinion, we note its holding: “We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as a basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Securities Fraud Class Action Defense Cases–Vladimir v. Bioenvision: New York Federal Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Failed To Meet Heightened Pleading Requirements Of PSLRA

Defense Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Granted because Defendants had no Duty to Disclose Merger Discussions Prior before Definitive Merger Agreement Reached and because Anonymous Source Insufficient to Satisfy Heightened Pleading Requirements of PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act) New York Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Bioenvision and certain officers and directors, and Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund (Bioenvision’s largest pre-merger shareholder) alleging violations of federal securities laws; the class action complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Perseus-Soros under section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, and against the individual defendants and Perseus-Soros under section 20(a). Vladimir v. Bioenvision Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 857552, *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, “defendants artificially deflated the value of Bioenvision’s stock by issuing and by failing to correct or update statements that contained material misrepresentations and omissions as to Bioenvision’s plan to enter into a merger with Genzyme.” _Id._ Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action on the grounds that the allegations in the class action complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). _Id._ Defendants further argued that “they had no duty to disclose the merger discussions until May 29, 2007, the date when the merger was announced publicly.” _Id._ Plaintiffs countered that defendants’ failure to disclose the plan to sell Bioenvision to Genzyme had the practical effect of artificially suppressing Bioenvision’s stock price, causing damage to plaintiffs because they sold their stock before the merger was officially announced (at which time the stock price skyrocketed). _Id._, at 4. Essentially, the “false and misleading” statements consisted of disclosing that its “primary focus” was the development of cancer treatments when its real focus was to find a merger partner. _Id._, at *5. The district court granted the defense motion and dismissed the class action complaint.

Cutting to the heart of the federal court’s analysis, the district court held that under Second Circuit authority “‘a corporation is not required to disclose a fact merely because a reasonable investor would very much like to know that fact.’” Vladimir, at *7 (citation omitted). Put simply, “[t]here is no specific duty to disclose merger negotiations under SEC rules until they become definitive agreements.” Id. (citations omitted). And since there was no duty to disclose, defendants’ silence could not be deemed misleading. Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argued that the parties had reached a “definitive agreement” to merge in January 2007, thus creating the duty to disclose. Id. But as this allegation was supported only by an anonymous source, it failed to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements. Id., at *7-*8. Further, as the federal court observed, “Under plaintiffs’ proposed rule, any public company that publicly described its core business or strategy – which is to say, every public company – would be required to disclose potential or actual merger negotiations. Statements that do not raise the subject of mergers, even tangentially, cannot impose a duty to disclose all material information concerning merger discussions.” Id., at *10. The district court ultimately concluded that the allegations in the class action complaint did not plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b), and in any event do not support a duty to disclose. Id., at *12. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss by the Bioenvision defendants. Id., at *13.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

TILA Class Action Defense Cases–Frazier v. Accredited Home Lenders: Alabama Federal Court Grants Lender’s Summary Judgment Motion In TILA Class Action

Lender Motion for Summary Judgment as to Class Action Claims Alleging Lender Violated TILA and HOEPA Properly Granted because Disclosed Finance Charges Fell within TILA’s Tolerance for Accuracy and because HOEPA did not Apply as Transaction was not High-Cost Loan Alabama Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Accredited Home Lenders, dba Home Funds Direct, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), which requires additional disclosures be made in connection with “high cost” loans; the class action complaint asserted that her lender “improperly understated the finance charge on credit it extended to her” and “failed t comply with the additional disclosure requirements” of HOEPA. Frazier v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 607 F.Supp.2d 1254, 2009 WL 931167, *1 (M.D.Ala. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, the lender improperly excluded several charges from its calculation of the finance charge – a claim the lender denied. Id., at *2. The class action sought rescission and damages, id., at *1. Defense attorneys moved summary judgment, id.; the lender argued that its disclosures were “accurate, complete, and in compliance with both TILA and HOEPA.” Id., at *2. The class action complaint alleged that the lender charged an “endorsement fee” for a service that was never provided, and that it charged an excessive fee for “a title search, a title examination, recording, and title insurance,” each of which allegedly should have been included in the finance charge. Id. Defense attorneys countered that the fees in question were “imposed by a third party” and that they were not excessive; further, the lender argued that the finance charge disclosed “falls within TILA’s tolerance for accuracy” (that is, one half of one percent of the loan amount). Id. Alternatively, defense attorneys argued that any errors fell within the safe harbor provision of TILA and fell outside the scope of HOEPA. Id. The district court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the lender on the class action complaint.

The federal court observed that the “dispositive question” was “how to calculate properly the finance charge” for the loan extended to plaintiff. Frazier, at *2. The court observed that this task was complicated by “the imprecise language of TILA itself and the maze of federal regulations interpreting the statute.” Id. Turning to the merits, the district court rejected the lender’s claim that it was not responsible for charges imposed by third parties, observing that the relevant inquiry is whether it required the services in question. Id., at *3. But the court agreed with defense attorneys that the lender did not “require” the “endorsement fee” charged by the third party, particularly as no service was ever provided in connection with that third party charge, id. Accordingly, the federal court held that “the endorsement fee must be excluded from the finance charge.” Id. The question then, was whether the remaining fees were “excessive” and whether the lender understated that amount of the finance charge, id.

Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

3M Class Action Defense Cases–Whitaker v. 3M: Minnesota State Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Labor Law Class Action Against 3M Alleging Age Discrimination

Labor Law Class Action Against 3M Alleging Age Discrimination Warranted Class Action Certification Minnesota State Court Holds Plaintiff filed a class action against his employer, 3M, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that 3M discriminated against employees on the basis of age with respect to leadership development opportunities, promotion decisions, compensation decisions, and job eliminations. Whitaker v. 3M Co., Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District, Case No.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Wal-Mart/Netflix Class Action Defense Cases—In re Online DVD Rental: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In Northern District Of California

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Common Class Action Defendants and by Vast Majority of Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of California Twelve class actions – eleven in the Northern District of California and one in the Western District of Washington – were filed against Wal-Mart and Netflix alleging violations of antitrust laws; specifically, the class action complaints allege “defendants conspired to divide the online DVD rental market in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

FACTA Class Action Defense Cases–Leysoto v. Mama Mia: Florida Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of FACTA Class Action Because Potential Liability Vastly Disproportionate To Actual Damages Suffered By Putative Class

FACTA Class Action Seeking $4.6 Million to $46 Million in Statutory Damages from Restaurant with Net Worth of $40,000 did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Class Action not “Superior” Method of Resolving Dispute Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Florida state court against Mama Mia, “a local restaurant in Hollywood, Florida, with approximately $40,000 in net assets”; the class action alleged that defendant violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which requires that merchants truncate credit card and debit card numbers on electronically-printed customer receipts. Leysoto v. Mama Mia I., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 693, 694 (S.D.Fla. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, the receipts defendant provided to customers “displayed both the expiration date and full number of [the customers’] credit card.” Id. (The district court noted that defendant “ceased this practice, and began truncating customer receipts to merely four (4) card numbers, no later than June 26, 2008.” Id.) The class action complaint sought “statutory and actual damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs,” id. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, id., and plaintiff moved for class certification, arguing a Rule 23(b)(3) class action should be certified, id., at 694-95. Defense attorneys opposed class action certification on the grounds that class action treatment would expose defendant to statutory damages of $4.6 million – $46 million, even though plaintiff concedes he did not suffer any actual economic injury and even though there was no evidence that any member of the putative class suffered actual economic injury. Id., at 695 and n.5. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion.

The district court explained that the class certification motion “turns on two related questions: (1) whether potential class damages are a proper consideration at the motion to certify stage; and, if so; (2) whether the potential class damages in this matter preclude certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).” Leysoto, at 694. Of course, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that class action treatment was warranted, id., at 695 (citations omitted). FACTA provides for recovery of actual damages or statutory damages of “not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” Id. (citation omitted). This is important because under Eleventh Circuit authority the district court “may consider potential class damages in adjudicating Plaintiff’s Motion, and given the vast disparity between the requested statutory damages and the actual injury caused by Defendant, the class vehicle is not the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this dispute.” Id., at 694.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Actions In The News FCRA Class Actions Uncategorized

Mercedes-Benz Class Action Defense Cases–In re Mercedes-Benz: New Jersey Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Class Action Claims For Unjust Enrichment And Consumer Fraud Based On Analog-Based Tele Aid Sales

Nationwide Class Action Complaint Alleging Unjust Enrichment and Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act Claims Warranted Class Action Treatment because Sale by Mercedes of Analog-Based Tele Aid Systems Involved Common Issues that Predominated over Individual Issues and because Balance of Rule 23’s Requirements for Class Action Certification had been Satisfied New Jersey Federal Court Holds

Ten separate class action lawsuits were filed in six different states against Mercedes-Benz and other defendants arising from vehicles equipped with the “Tele Aid” emergency response system; Mercedes-Benz moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the class action complaints for pretrial purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D.N.J. April 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 5]. The Judicial Panel granted the motion, and the various class actions were transferred to New Jersey, _id._, at 5-6. (The district court observed that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that minimal diversity exists; accordingly, the court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). _Id._, at 2.) Once the class actions were centralized, the district court appointed interim class counsel and directed counsel to file a consolidated amended class action complaint, _id._, at 6. The putative nationwide class action complaint alleged causes of action for common law unjust enrichment and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act “premised on the contention that Mercedes made statements or omissions of material facts that it knew or should have known were false or misleading when promoting vehicles purchased by Plaintiffs that were equipped with ‘Tele Aid,’ an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology.” _Id._, at 2-3. At bottom, the class action claims are premised on the theory that Mercedes knew “that the analog network on which the Tele Aid systems contained in their vehicles depended would cease to function in 2008, but continued to market Tele Aid without disclosing that fact.” _Id._, at 6. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 1. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

The district court explained that plaintiffs’ task at the class action certification stage was to demonstrate that the claims in the class action complaint were susceptible to common proof at trial rather than relying on evidence that is individual to the putative class members. In re Mercedes-Benz, at 4. Plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment was supported in part by three expert reports; the experts supported plaintiffs’ claim that Mercedes failed to adequately inform customers that analog service would terminate at the end of 2007, even though “discontinuation of analog service in early 2008 was a regulatory certainty at the time the FCC finalized its rule on August 8, 2002.” Id., at 3. “Mercedes began including Tele Aid systems in most of its vehicles in 2000,” id., and “touted its ability to provide subscribers with emergency road-side assistance, remotely unlock doors, and track stolen vehicles,” id., at 7. Certain of these vehicles relied solely on analog signals over wireless telephone networks; the company subsequently sold vehicles that were capable of using both analog and digital signals. Id. We do not discuss the facts in greater detail here, see id., at 7-12. The basis of plaintiffs’ class action certification motion was that “this case is particularly well-suited to class treatment because (1) their claims ‘arise from a single course of conduct that affect[ed] large numbers of consumers,’ and (2) the costs to each class member of pursuing his or her suit would exceed any potential recovery.” Id., at 13. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment because (1) a nationwide class should not be certified as the claims of each named plaintiff are governed by the laws of their respective home states, which differ in material ways, and (2) common questions of fact do not predominate. Id., at 13-14.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–In re Hannaford Bros.: First Circuit Affirms Remand Of Class Action Holding Home State Exception To CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Jurisdiction Applies

Class Action on Behalf of Florida Citizens Against Florida Corporation, Removed to Federal Court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Properly Remanded to State Court because Home State Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction Applies First Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action in Florida state court against Kash N’ Karry Food Stores (a chain of grocery stores in Florida) alleging “alleging that Kash N’ Karry had failed to adopt adequate security measures to protect its customers’ credit card information.” In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, a computer hacker stole from defendant the credit and debit card information of approximately 1.6 million Kash N’ Karry customers, and limited the class action’s definition to Florida residents, id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation coordinated plaintiff’s class action for pretrial purposes with two dozen other class actions in the District of Maine. Id., at 4. The other 24 class actions had been filed against entities that were related to Kash N’ Karry; specifically, its sister corporation Hannaford Brothers, and their common parent company, Delhaize America. Id. Plaintiff moved to remand his class action to state court under the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction; the district court granted plaintiff’s motion and the First Circuit gave defendant leave to appeal. Id. The Circuit Court stated that this case “presents an issue of first impression for this circuit regarding the application of the home state exception to federal jurisdiction under [CAFA].” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys argued that the class action complaint had been drafted to defeat CAFA jurisdiction “in violation of congressional intent”; plaintiff responded that the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied and, accordingly, that the district court order remanding the class action to state court was correct. Id. The Circuit Court affirmed the remand of the class action to state court, holding that the class action complaint fell squarely within the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

CAFA’s home state exception “requires a federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction if at least two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed.” In re Hannaford, at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)). The First Circuit observed that plaintiff’s class action complaint limits the scope of the class to Florida citizens, and is brought against a single corporation, Kash N’ Karry, which also is a Florida citizen. Id. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the basis of the home state exception, and the Circuit Court affirmed, rejecting defense attorney claims that “the application of CAFA’s home state exception depends on a broader assessment of the claims brought by others who do not fall within the complaint’s class definition or of the claims available to the class against other possible defendants.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Multidistrict Litigation Removal & Remand Uncategorized

McDonald’s Class Action Defense Cases–In re McDonald’s French Fries: Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment Of Consumer Fraud Class Action Complaint Because Individual Issues Predominate Over Common Issues

Class Action Complaint Alleging Consumer Fraud/Deceptive Practices Based on Alleged Misrepresentation by McDonald’s as to Whether its Potato Products Contained Certain Allergens did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individual Issues Predominate Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action against McDonald’s alleging “violations of all of the fifty states’ and the District of Columbia’s consumer fraud and/or deceptive trade practices acts, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment”; the class action complaint asserted that plaintiffs suffer from “certain medical conditions” and were deceived by McDonald’s as to the ingredients contained in its french fries and hash browns. In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, McDonald’s would par-fry (or blanch) its potato products “in an oil made of 99% vegetable oil and 1% natural beef flavor”; the beef flavor, in turn, contained “hydrolyzed wheat bran and hydrolyzed casein (a dairy product).” _Id._ McDonald’s would advertise its potato products, however, as “gluten, wheat, and dairy-free,” thus making McDonald’s representations (according to the class action) “at best incorrect, if not intentionally misleading” – claims that McDonald’s denied. _Id._, at 2. (However, McDonald’s later corrected its disclosures about its potato products.) Plaintiffs disclaimed any physical injury from eating the potato products but alleged economic harm in that they would not have purchased products with allergens (i.e., gluten, wheat or dairy) but for McDonald’s misrepresentations. _Id._ The class action sought to recover the “actual economic harm” suffered by the putative class – “(_i.e._, the purchase price of the Potato Products) based on the difference in value between the gluten, wheat, dairy, and allergy-free products plaintiffs wanted and the non-conforming products they actually received.” _Id._, at 2-3. Plaintiffs’ moved the district court to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 3-4. The district court determined that class action treatment was not warranted and therefore denied plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

Plaintiffs proposed to define the nationwide class to include “All persons residing in the United States…(i) who purchased Potato Products from McDonald’s restaurants on or after February 27, 2002 through February 7, 2006 and (ii) who at the time of purchase had 3 been medically diagnosed with celiac disease, galactosemia, autism and/or wheat, gluten or dairy allergies.” McDonald’s, at 4. After summarizing the Rule 23 requirements governing class action motions and noting the “broad discretion” afforded district courts in deciding whether to grant such motions, see id., at 3-4, the court noted that plaintiffs sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which requires (in addition to the four elements set forth in Rule 23(a) of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation) that plaintiffs demonstrate “(1) common issues of law and fact predominate, and (2) a class action is superior to other forms of adjudication,” id., at 4 (citation omitted). But preliminarily, the district court observed that the proposed class is overly broad, as the definition includes people who never saw or heard anything from McDonald’s concerning whether the potato products were allergen free. Id., at 5. This was important given that none of the named plaintiffs suffered any physical reaction from eating McDonald’s potato products despite allergens, id., at 6. As the federal court concluded at pages 6 and 7, “It is fairly assumable…that many persons in the class as defined by plaintiffs have gone on eating defendant’s Potato Products since defendant corrected its disclosure. By any definition, these people have suffered no injury, not even the economic one claimed in this lawsuit.”

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized